State v. RichardsonState v. Richardson
Rendered on January 31, 2013
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Donald L. Richardson, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to modify sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} As a result of an automobile collision that occurred on December 25, 2004, appellant was indicted on January 27, 2005 for multiple counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In September 2005, appellant entered pleas of guilty to three counts of aggravated vehicular
{¶ 3} On March 10, 2006, apрellant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, which this court denied on April 25, 2006. Therеafter, appellant filed a motion in the trial court to vacate his conviction and sentence. Aftеr finding appellant failed to set forth operative facts that would entitle him to a hearing on his motion, the trial court dismissed appellant‘s motion for postconviction relief. In December 2010, appellant filed а motion to modify sentence; however, a disposition of this motion does not appear in the record.
{¶ 4} On February 13, 2012, appellant filed a motion to modify sentence arguing that during sentencing the trial court failed to mаke appropriate findings, and his sentence was not proportional when compared to sentеnces of similarly situated defendants. The trial court denied appellant‘s motion on July 10, 2012, finding that the challenges to the jointly-recommended sentence raised in appellant‘s motion were barred by the doctrine of rеs judicata.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 5} This appeal followed, and appellant brings the following assignment of error for our review:
The Trial Court error and Deproved the Appellant of Due Process of Law in Violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution in that the Appellant should have been given an Concurrent Sentence with respect to his Offenses being Allied Offenses.
(Sic passim.)
III. DISCUSSION
{¶ 6} Under his assigned error, appellant asserts the sеntence imposed is disproportionate to sentences imposed on others convicted of similar offenses. Appellant also asserts the trial court failed to make appropriate findings, and that his оffenses should have been merged for purposes of sentencing.
{¶ 8} The postconviction relief process is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment, not an appeal of the judgment. State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410 (1994). “It is a means to reach constitutional issues which would otherwise be impossible to rеach because the evidence supporting those issues is not contained” in the trial court record. State v. Murphy, 10th Dist. No. 00AP-233 (Dec. 26, 2000). Postconviction review is not a constitutional right, but, rather, is a narrow remedy which affords a petitioner no rights beyоnd those granted by statute. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 (1999).
{¶ 9} When an
{¶ 10} The arguments presented by appellant in the present case could havе been presented in a direct appeal from the trial court‘s sentencing entry, but they were not. As a result, res judicata bars appellant from raising them in this appeal. State v. Greenberg, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-11, 2012-Ohio-3975 (doctrine of res judicata bars merger issue); Timmons (res judicata bars allied offense arguments); State v. Lawson, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-148, 2002-Ohio-3329 (arguments pertaining to consistency of sentences barred by res judicata); State v. Holloman, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-875, 2008-Ohio-2650 (assertion
{¶ 11} Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that the doctrine of res judicata bars the arguments raised in appellant‘s motion to modify sentence, and the trial court did not err in denying appellаnt‘s motion. Consequently, we overrule appellant‘s asserted assignment of error.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, appellant‘s single assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.